I don’t know what Bill’s readership is, but I seem to be almost his only commenter; though hunter has gathered with me since Bill’s post. Bill’s blog has some interesting posts, and I like his attitude.

It is utter nonsense to suggest, worse to believe that people trained in one discipline cannot judge the quality of work done by those trained in another field. One need only study the methods to find sufficient cause to distrust the results. People all over the world are reacting not to the complex science but the the abuse of authority displayed by the central climate science orthodoxy. The fool me once rule is in effect.

The liberated emails written by the core group demonstrates clearly these people are incapable of proper science, are willing to resort to thuggery to silence opposition, and rely not on the science they produce but on strategically managing the climate science ecosystem to accomplish their goals.

The greatest evil in all of this is the stoney cold silence from vast numbers of those in the scientific fields regarding the very clear message revealed by CG1 and CG2. Where the hell is the outrage? It’s as if this were all just business as usual.

@William Martin

” … banning of some Monkton youtube files”

Which ones, please ? (I’m not much interested in Monckton, but I am interested in censorship details)

Dear Judith,
I believe that the issue is a little bit more complicated than what you summarized.

First, it is not reasonable to request that so-called “climate scientists” be granted the special privilege of not being challenged by other scientists in different fields. This is highly inappropriate, in science in particular. Everybody has the right to challenge the claims of everybody else in science.

What makes a person a so-called “scientific expert” in a specific field against other people is not the tag-name than he/she has on his/her business card such as “Dr. Tim Brown, climate scientist.” But it is his/her capacity of showing that he/she does perform better in its profession than those who may challenge his/her understanding of a specific phenomenon.

History of science is filled of examples of people challenging the “consensus” in a specific discipline coming from another discipline. For example, the field of microeconomics between the 19th and 20th century was greatly developed by Vilfredo Pareto who strongly challenged the economists of his time. One may think that Vilfredo Pareto too was an economist by profession, but he was not. His personal formation was physics (!) and engineering (!). He simply succeeded in showing that his understanding of economical phenomena was superior to that of the professional economists of his time. In the same way, for example, the 11-year solar cycle was discovered by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe. One may think that Schwabe was a professional astronomer or astrophysics by formation. He was not. He was, by formation, a pharmacist (!) who simply succeeded in showing that his understanding of solar data was far superior to that of the professional astronomers. And innumerable examples like these exist in history.

If a scientist or a category of scientists are challenged by somebody else in their specific field of expertise, what they need to do is very simple. They need to show that they understand the phenomenon under discussion better that their opponent by using valid scientific arguments, or if they do not have valid arguments, they need to welcome their opponent’s ideas and acknowledge them and praise him/her.

What is happening in the specific topic of climate change and global warming is that a group of scientists, calling themselves “climate scientists”, has proposed an explanation based on a theory focusing on the anthropogenic GHG emissions. The problem is that, by just looking at internet, these scientists have failed to convince a lot of people with different expertise that their theory is solid and accurate. The challenge is mostly based on the analysis of the same data used by everybody, for example global surface temperatures, which the AGW critics claim to contain evident patterns which are not reproduced by the AGW theory.

For example, in my last publication in this field

N. Scafetta, “Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models” Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.12.005.
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/Scafetta_models_comparison_ATP.pdf

I have shown that the global surface temperature appears to be characterized by a set of harmonics (~9.1, ~10-11, ~20, ~60 years period, at least). Although the physical causes of these harmonics are not fully understood (I have argued that these are astronomically induced harmonics), I could prove that none of the General Circulation Models (GCMs) used by the IPCC is able to reconstruct these oscillations, which make most of the observed climate variability.

I could also prove that GCM are currently overestimating the volcano signature by a significant factor, and I could show that the use of natural harmonics can be used to bind the net anthropogenic effect on climate to a magnitude that is about three times smaller than what the GCMs have assumed. Finally, I have shown that this harmonic model plus the corrected anthropogenic effect (which were all calibrated on the period antecedent 2000) is quite able to reproduce the global temperature standstill since 2000 and some other dynamical pattern observed in the temperature. On the contrary, all GCMs of the IPCC have predicted a steady warming during the same period.

So, at this point, the scientists who have promoted the AGW theory using a set of GCMs can do one of the two things: 1) contradict my calculations by proving that their models reproduce the oscillations observed in the temperature, or 2) acknowledge that these natural oscillations exist and that their physics is not yet implemented in their models, and that this missing physics needs to be developed yet (that is the science in not settled yet).

In the latter case, it cannot be claimed any more that CO2 does what the AGW advocates have thought because such a conclusion is based on climate models whose outputs have not passed the observational test. In fact, their GCM models have failed to properly reconstruct the observed dynamics and structure of the temperature data from 1850 to 2012, which these models were supposed to reconstruct, and since 2000, forecast.

Some of the figures I have produced are in my web site
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/

Evidently, the fact that I am a physicist by formation is irrelevant; it does not make my results better or worse. In the same way, if other people develop arguments that questions ideas held by other people, the validity of their arguments is in the arguments themselves, not on the kind of doctorate one holds. So, criticizing the meditated opinion of a set of people by simply claiming that most of them are physicists working in fields different from climate science, is not valid.

These physicists very likely have sufficiently studied the relevant literature and concluded that the AGW theory is not as robust as the majority of climate scientists have claimed. The advanced reason is very simple: there exists a significant mismatch between the data and the predictions of the theory, everywhere.

There is nothing wrong for experienced physicists to express such a professional opinion; that is what physicists do all times.

I personally believe that climate scientists should try to search a constructive dialogue with people with a different scientific background. After all, climate science is a multidisciplinary science that truly requires people from multiple disciplines.

Departments of Earth Science should simply favor more multidisciplinary dialogue. For example, the sad costume typical only to the departments of Earth Science of the so-called “dis-invitation” of speakers that challenge the AGW needs to end once and for all. It simply isolates these departments from the rest of the world and gives to everybody only a clear message of scientific dogma and intellectual obtuseness. After all the students need to be educated in critical thinking, not in dogmatic indoctrination.

Indeed, instead of fighting against physicists (and everybody else) who simply express valid concerns, the departments of Earth Science should try to open their doors to them because these departments may also greatly benefit from the expertise and novel methodologies that physicists and mathematicians are able to develop.

Indeed, Departments of Earth Science should seriously consider hiring some physicists interested in climate phenomena.

Numbnut,

Abrupt changes are the sad thing about it. They imply extreme sensitivity at saddle points – as I have said in this thread. And indeed as Tsonis and colleagues say in the paper from which I excised the figure showing residuals after removing ‘natural variation’. Can I assume from this that you are in denial about natural variation. Can’t be because you mentioned abrupt paleoclimatic change?

The whole screams green overreach – and there is a shrill echo claiming that the 00′s were warmer than the 90′s therefore we are still warming. I wonder if that would be so obvious if it were not for Mt Pinotubo? Regardless, you can be assured that we are in a cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Variation – and this cannot help but be a global cooling influence. As even the merest study of oceanography would show you. You forget also that I am a hydrologist and my love has been for the rain and the rivers, streams, lakes and oceans. I understand more than most hydrological variability.

3.7 W/m2 is a 1% change in albedo. It changes this much and more in a year sometimes – according to the satellite data.

Ocean pH change is not distinguisable from background variability – although I am not one to say that we can continue with impunity increasing CO2 emissions as the global economy continues to grow.

You have less than a nuanced understanding. We are in a cool mode. This is obvious to all but those who won’t see – natural variability for God’s sake.

That’s not a multiple choice test; that’s essay free-form. In multiple choice the choices are pre-listed by the examiner.

I’m afraid that’s a FAIL (somebody’s).

joshua.
like dydson.
not dyson. someone like dyson
grant judith her presumption that dyson has
metacognitive abilities. amd stay on topic.
frankly I question whether metacognition is
that useful. your thread jacking has
reach a new low.

Note that judith suggested someone like dyson. then mote that joshua turned it into a discusion
about the man in particular amd into a
discusion about judith and others.
not one cogent thought from him on the topic
derailer. troll
hobby horsing.

White House Science Czar would use free market . . .

Obviously, Holdren doesn’t begin to comprehend the free market. Some bureaucrat/would-be-dictator doesn’t use a truly free market for anything. In a free market, individuals producing and trading among themselves create whatever they are capable of, and the resultant emergent economy is what it is (and has proven to be enormously beneficial for mankind wherever it has been allowed to operate). It is not something that a tyrant can use to produce his personally desired result by imposing upon the entire rest of mankind, whether to limit their numbers, or any other goal. A free market, if allowed to operate, produces whatever free people are capable of producing (including more people, if that is their choice).

Nicola

Thanks for your considered comment.

…it cannot be claimed any more that CO2 does what the AGW advocates have thought because such a conclusion is based on climate models whose outputs have not passed the observational test.

Agree!

IPCC projection Vs Observation => http://bit.ly/z7cOHe

No change in climate pattern for 160 years => http://bit.ly/Aei4Nd

Nicola

Thanks for your Forbes article.

You mention Martin Gardrner, an all-time fave. Lots of crackpots writing comments on this blog, of whom Martin would probably have a chuckle over.

Freeman Dyson admitted to a real misunderstanding when someone finally convinced him that CO2 has a very long adjustment time. After that the reality of the long-term effects of anthropogenic CO2 finally hit him.

Re: Science & Capital – Radical Essays on Science & Technology,
… a stimulating book that questions many dominant assumptions about the function of science and technology in capitalism

Little or no relevance to climate science then – since close 100% of climate science is state-funded, making it ‘science and technology in socialism‘.

@ Ian18888
re banned Monkton files, I can’t provide exact details of date, file name.
I can say that the item was related to the Durban IPCC Conference.
a message came on the youtube screen when I attempted to view the material
” This has been banned by your government” or words to that effect.
a search has not been able to locate a further example of this message.

Joshua : … never before have I read a fantasy/rant about the dangers of “blind trust” in science. Well, except ever time I read Climate Etc.

Yes – hiding declines, hiding data etc etc, and generally sabotaging the science process, is elsewhere now fully accepted as a central pillar of modern climate science, and indeed forms the bedrock of the alarmist consensus against which posters here often rant.

if they have no scientific theory they are doing astrology.
if they have a scientific theory I would like to see how its predictions are validated. If predictions are not validated or poorly validated then I would assume the 75 have done something wrong in their theory.
if prediction are only partially validated or there is not enough data then they miss something in the theory which needs to be improved or we need to wait and collect data.
what about if the 2 others have previously already said the theory would fail?
science is not advancing based on consensus.

What can we expect from all the brite lites of Main-Stream-Media…

OBAMA ELIGIBILITY COURT CASE…BLOW BY BLOW
By Craig Andresen on January 26, 2012 at 9:25 am

Given the testimony from today’s court case in Georgia, Obama has a lot of explaining to do. His attorney, Jablonski, was a NO SHOW as of course, was Obama.

The following is a nutshell account of the proceedings.

Promptly at 9am EST, all attorneys involved in the Obama Georgia eligibility case were called to the Judge’s chambers. This was indeed a very interesting beginning to this long awaited and important case.

The case revolved around the Natural Born clause of the Constitution and whether or not Obama qualifies under it to serve. More to the point, if found ineligible, Obama’s name would not appear on the 2012 ballot in Georgia.

With the small courtroom crowded, several in attendance could be seen fanning themselves with pamphlets as they waited for the return of the attorneys and the appearance of the judge.

Obama himself, who had been subpoenaed to appear, of course was nowhere near Georgia. Instead, Obama was on a campaign swing appearing in Las Vegas and in Colorado ignoring the court in Georgia.

Over the last several weeks, Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had attempted several tactics to keep this case from moving forward. He first tried to have it dismissed, then argued that it was irrelevant to Obama. After that, Jablonski argued that a state could not, under the law, determine who would or would not be on a ballot and later, that Obama was simply too busy with the duties of office to appear.

After all these arguments were dispatched by the Georgia Court, Jablonski, in desperation, wrote to the Georgia Secretary of State attempting to place Obama above the law and declared that the case was not to he heard and neither he nor his client would participate.

Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, fired back a letter hours later telling Jablonski he was free to abandon the case and not participate but that he would do so at his and his clients peril.

Game on.

5 minutes.

10 minutes.

15 minutes with the attorneys in the judge’s chambers.

20 minutes.

It appears Jablonski is not in attendance as the attorneys return, all go to the plaintiff table 24 minutes after meeting in the judge’s chambers.

Has Obama’s attorney made good on his stated threat not to participate? Is he directly ignoring the court’s subpoena? Is he placing Obama above the law? It seems so. Were you or I subpoenaed to appear in court, would we or our attorney be allowed such action or, non action?

Certainly not.

Court is called to order.

Obama’s birth certificate is entered into evidence.

Obama’s father’s place of birth, Kenya East Africa is entered into evidence.

Pages 214 and 215 from Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father” entered into evidence. Highlighted. This is where Obama indicates that, in 1966 or 1967 that his father’s history is mentioned. It states that his father’s passport had been revoked and he was unable to leave Kenya.

Immigration Services documents entered into evidence regarding Obama Sr.

June 27th, 1962, is the date on those documents. Obama’s father’s status shown as a non citizen of the United States. Documents were gotten through the Freedom of Information Act.

Testimony regarding the definition of Natural Born Citizen is given citing Minor vs Happersett opinion from a Supreme Court written opinion from 1875. The attorney points out the difference between “citizen” and “Natural Born Citizen” using charts and copies of the Minor vs Happersett opinion.

It is also pointed out that the 14th Amendment does not alter the definition or supersede the meaning of Natural Born. It is pointed out that lower court rulings do not conflict with the Supreme Court opinion nor do they over rule the Supreme Court Minor vs Happersett opinion.

The point is, to be a natural born citizen, one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, be citizens of the United States. As Obama’s father was not a citizen, the argument is that Obama, constitutionally, is ineligible to serve as President.

Judge notes that as Obama nor his attorney is present, action will be taken accordingly.

Carl Swinson takes the stand.

Testimony is presented that the SOS has agreed to hear this case, laws applicable, and that the DNC of Georgia will be on the ballot and the challenge to it by Swinson.

2nd witness, a Mr. Powell, takes the stand and presents testimony regarding documents of challenge to Obama’s appearance on the Georgia ballot and his candidacy.

Court records of Obama’s mother and father entered into evidence.

Official certificate of nomination of Obama entered into evidence.

RNC certificate of nomination entered into evidence.

DNC language does NOT include language stating Obama is Qualified while the RNC document DOES. This shows a direct difference trying to establish that the DNC MAY possibly have known that Obama was not qualified.

Jablonski letter to Kemp yesterday entered into evidence showing their desire that these proceedings not take place and that they would not participate.

Dreams From My Father entered.

Mr. Allen from Tuscon AZ sworn in.

Disc received from Immigration and Naturalization Service entered into evidence. This disc contains information regarding the status of Obama’s father received through the Freedom of Information Act.

This information states clearly that Obama’s father was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.

At this point, the judge takes a recess.

The judge returns.

David Farrar takes the stand.

Evidence showing Obama’s book of records listing his nationality as Indonesian. Deemed not relevant by the judge.

Orly Taitz calls 2nd witness. Mr. Strump.

Enters into evidence a portion of letter received from attorney showing a renewal form from Obama’s mother for her passport listing Obama’s last name something other than Obama.

State Licensed PI takes the stand.

She was hired to look into Obama’s background and found a Social Security number for him from 1979. Professional opinion given that this number was fraudulent. The number used or attached to Obama in 1979, shows that Obama was born in 1890. This shows that the number was originally assigned to someone else who was indeed born in 1890 and should never have been used by Obama.

Same SS number came up with addresses in IL, D.C. and MA.

Next witness takes the stand.

This witness is an expert in information technology and photo shop. He testifies that the birth certificate Obama provided to the public is layered, multiple layered. This, he testifies, indicates that different parts of the certificate have been lifted from more than one original document.

Linda Jordan takes the stand.

Document entered regarding SS number assigned to Obama. SS number is not verified under E Verify. It comes back as suspected fraudulent. This is the system by which the Government verifies ones citizenship.

Next witness.

Mr. Gogt.

Expert in document imaging and scanners for 18 years.

Mr. Gogt testifies that the birth certificate, posted online by Obama, is suspicious. States white lines around all the type face is caused by “unsharp mask” in Photoshop. Testifies that any document showing this, is considered to be a fraud.

States this is a product of layering.

Mr. Gogt testifies that a straight scan of an original document would not show such layering.

Also testifies that the date stamps shown on Obama documents should not be in exact same place on various documents as they are hand stamped. Obama’s documents are all even, straight and exactly the same indicating they were NOT hand stamped by layered into the document by computer.

Next witness, Mr. Sampson a former police officer and former immigration officer specializing in immigration fraud.

Ran Obama’s SS number through database and found that the number was issued to Obama in 1977 in the state of MA. Obama never resided in MA. At the time of issue, Obama was living in Hawaii.

Serial number on birth certificate is out of sequence with others issued at that hospital. Also certification is different than others and different than twins born 24 hours ahead of Obama.

Mr. Sampson also states that portion of documents regarding Mr. Sotoro, who adopted Obama have been redacted which is highly unusual with regards to immigration records.

Suggests all records from Social Security, Immigration, Hawaii birth records be made available to see if there are criminal charges to be filed or not. Without them, nothing can be ruled out.

Mr. Sampson indicates if Obama is shown not to be a citizen, he should be arrested and deported and until all records are released nobody can know for sure if he is or is not a U.S. Citizen.

Taitz shows records for Barry Sotoro aka Barack Obama, showing he resides in Hawaii and in Indonesia at the same time.

Taitz takes the stand herself.

Testifies that records indicate Obama records have been altered and he is hiding his identity and citizenship.

Taitz leave the stand to make her closing arguments.

Taitz states that Obama should be found, because of the evidence presented, ineligible to serve as President.

And with that, the judge closes the hearing.

What can we take away from this?

It’s interesting.

Now, all of this has finally been entered OFFICIALLY into court records.

One huge question is now more than ever before, unanswered.

WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY?

Without his attorney present, Obama’s identity, his Social Security number, his citizenship status, and his past are all OFFICIALLY in question.

One thing to which there seems no doubt. He does NOT qualify, under the definition of Natural Born Citizen” provided by SCOTUS opinions, to be eligible to serve as President.

What will the judge decide? That is yet to be known, but it seems nearly impossible to believe, without counter testimony or evidence, because Obama and his attorney chose not to participate, that Obama will be allowed on the Georgia ballot.

It also opens the door for such cases pending or to be brought in other states as well.

Obama is in it deep and the DNC has some…a LOT…of explaining to do unless they start looking for a new candidate for 2012.

O & it’s Super Bowl Sunday, too!

“JC note to the IPCC: rely less on expert judgment and appeal to authority, and more on carefully crafted and documented arguments.”

And the very opposite extreme to “carefully crafted and documented arguments” is to be found in blog comments.

“Global temperatures have stubbonly refused to go on increasing.”

It has gone on increasing:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:60

I note you don’t comment on arctic sea ice, which has declined beyond expectations and you don’t comment on ice sheets which are losing mass at an accelerating rate.

The world will continue warming significantly if we do not put in place steps to reduce CO2 emissions. Much of the problem with skeptics is they come up with crud excuses rather than logical reason. At the rate it’s increasing CO2 will dominate 21st century temperature trends.

Somewhere in there, I think, is an admission that the residence time on a planet known as earth is very long, and that on some “Freeman in Wonderland” planet it’s his number.